Propaganda – flickr

While reading Yves Smith Naked Capitalism the Links section had a link to an entry by Dmitry Orlov – Reichstag Fire in Kiev. Where he gives president to the crisis being the work of neo-nazis egged on by and helped by the US and it’s western allies. Citing the Reichstag Fire in Germany in 1933 as a the incentive, since it very close to the anniversary on Feb. 23. 1933. As well as the current events that lead up to the situation we have today.

Obviously, this is far from a replay but more of a faint echo. It is a work-out of a long sequence of events. Leaving aside the dim past which gave rise to the Black Hundred and its Pogrom artists, the major problem is that Western Ukraine (Eastern Poland prior to World War II) was never properly de-Nazified (the technical German term for this process is Entnazifizierung). Then there was the fateful mistake of giving away Russian Crimea to Ukraine by Khrushchev (a Ukrainian), neatly paralleling the giving away of Abkhazia to Georgia by Stalin (a Georgian). Then came the years of neglect following the collapse of the USSR during which Ukraine, never quite capable of self-governance, achieved truly stunning levels of misery and corruption and became famous for its main export—young prostitutes. Then came the Orange Revolution, in which Yushchenko, who is the husband of a former Reagan-administration neocon, was thrust into office in a US-orchestrated campaign. He, along with his side-kick Yulia Tymoshenko, continued the orgy of corruption, until they were voted out of office and replaced by an equally venal, but additionally very thick-headed Yanukovych, who was the one chased out of office on the anniversary of the Reichstag fire.

Pointing to the current administrations’ relationship with the Ukrainian neo-nazis  and the the US with it’s history of …

thieving Presidents and Congressmen and gradually going broke as a result, are being systematically conditioned to hate Vladimir Putin. (As thieving presidents go, Bush is ahead so far with over a trillion dollars stolen via the bank bailouts and the so-called “Iraqi Reconstruction” while Obama is behind, having gobbled up just the “stimulus spending,” but may pull ahead of Bush soon thanks to the massive grift scheme known as “Obamacare” and other assorted swindles.)

Has little [if any] room to talk concerning Russia’s motives and Putin’s action on this manner. For the Russians are intimately experienced with Nazism and it’s effects. With US media towing the government line of anti-Russia, and anti-Putin for the benefit of our own oligarchs. Even thought Putin managed to pull Russia out of it’s economic and financial destruction, a situation which was at least partially helped by the west.

Finally, it bears pointing out that, Rechstag fires aside, the current state of affairs in Ukraine is the West’s direct fault: Ukraine was forced to choose between signing a worthless deal with the EU and entering a customs union with Moscow. Both Washington and Brussels, along with most of Western media, completely ignored Putin’s suggestion that all the sides negotiate a compromise solution to avoid Ukrainian bankruptcy, which is now all but assured. Because of Western intransigence, Ukraine’s government was forced to lurch between the EU and Moscow, losing face in the process and providing the fascists with a convenient opening.

The really interesting part is actually the links he gives to a tree part treatise by John Michael Greer on fascism. Where Greer gives a good historical perspective on fascism and how it has been used in the past as well as the present.  From Mussolini and Hitler to the present day as an derogatory epithet used by both the right and left to apply to anyone who whose ideas are contrary to those each side espouses. Greer’s premise is that any third way of thinking is at best dismissed and usually denigrated by the two major political entities, both of which are trying feverishly to maintain the status quo.

Greer also goes into detail  on what conservatism used to mean.

Since Republicans and Democrats are themselves simply very minor variations on a common theme, it worked well thereafter to apply those labels to anyone who strayed too far from the midpoint between the two.  This allowed the parties to squabble about peripheral issues while maintaining perfect unanimity on core values such as maintaining America’s empire, say, or supporting the systemic imbalances in financial and resource flows that keep that empire in business.

 One of the consequences of that strategy was the elimination of conservatism, in anything like the old meaning of that word, from the vocabulary of American politics. The Anglo-American tradition of conservatism—continental Europe has its own somewhat different form—has its roots in the writings of Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on the Revolution in France became a lightning rod for generations of thinkers who found the hubris of the radical Enlightenment too much to swallow. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex tradition, conservatism was based on the recognition that human beings aren’t as smart as they like to think. As a result, when intellectuals convince themselves that they know how to make a perfect human society, they’re wrong, and the consequences of trying to enact their fantasies in the real world normally range from the humiliating to the horrific.

To the conservative mind, the existing order of society has one great advantage that the arbitrary inventions of would-be world-reformers can’t match: it has actually been shown to work in practice.

Through all the maturations and anti-communist propaganda and such, the left now views any sort of conservative thinking a fascist, neo-fascist or nazi like. Not even knowing what each actually means now or in historical context.

That these days the left equates fascism and conservatism with bigotry, racism and hate. Which the current self proclaimed “conservatives” proudly wear as a mantle of distinction.   He [Greer] also goes into the background of the “National Socialist Workers Party” – Nazi -  to which Hitler was a part of.  That it arose to fill the gap that emerged by the political infighting in Weimar republic, with its total dysfunction.

Then in the end proposes a though experiment of modern day where a third party emerges promising to “right the wrongs” and bring “order to chaos”  etc. based on progressive and ecological principals and end the end becomes worse than what proceeded it.  His thesis being that fascist and totalitarian states emerge when the middle ground is abandoned and this middle ground becomes a void.

Orlov sums it up at the end of his essay rather well.

In case you would prefer something much shorter, my thesis is that fascism can be handily equated with militarized bigotry, and that while most countries are at this point immune to it, seeing it as idiotic at best and criminal at worst, certain countries are not—weak, socially disrupted, destitute countries, with an unresolved fascist past, that are subject to unscrupulous external political manipulation—such as poor Ukraine.

The middle ground was embraced by both political parties here but was abandoned when they both began to pursue imperialism.  Leaving the US with a Weimar like situation.

Though I seriously doubt we will become a fascist totalitarian state, I can see US becoming more like the Ukraine. Lurching from one oligarchy to another with those trapped here having to bare the brunt of it.